Proposed Rule Change
Sort:
Do a search for Seieawan chess. Two new pieces that are added into the game after the has started. If it catches on it will add a whole new dimension to chess.
Mar 14, 2008
0
#3
Chess originally only had 1 square moves. The reason it went to 2 was to expand the numbers of openings, because previously moving a central pawn freed one bishop and blocked the other. They aren't going to switch back to one just to screw over people that memorize openings.
You also might want to check out Arimaa, a game designed to be played on a chess board but specifically designed to trip up computers.
You may also want to switch games to Go because its entirely positional play, which computers suck at.
There are plenty of chess variants out there, go play them. You said yourself fischer random, so go play it, it seems to suit you perfectly.
try these:
we learnt two of them from a 6th grader named Umut Bul.
Babychess was introduced to us by Mr.Tutku in our brother school,which hosted a chess tournament.
BABYCHESS
Played in teams of 2.One teammate is black other is white.When you capture a piece you give it to your teammate.He can place it anywhere but not eat a piece with it.After placing a piece it is your foe's turn.If your teammate is checkmated,you lose as well.
TAKE IT!(By Umut Bul)
Similar to normal chess but in Take It! you must make your opponent take all your pieces except for your king.If you are able to take a piece,you must TAKE IT!
N+1(By Umut Bul)
Quite simple.White makes a move.Black makes two.White makes three and so on.However,if you check,it is his turn to move.Pawns cannot go two squares.
how centuries long is the actual chess as we play it??
the chess is really a complex system, as mathematics, if you put a variant, you create a chaos, just figure out add or remove a square, a file, a row... totally insane.
and I think the human being will be hard to ´dominate´chess as tictactoe or checkers, only if THE MATRIX allows you to save all the information on your brain flash drive 
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
please cheater, can u be honest?? are u mad about not being a good player or really feel this game boring?? I bet you dont have real challenges for it
Mar 15, 2008
0
#6
Actually, computers are a mix of stored moves and analysing moves. It's not so much the huge database they have but more how quickly they can analyse different moves, so that in a timed game it can analyse thousands more positions than you in the same time. The instinct part of chess is pattern recognition and memorisation, but that isn't 99% of the game, I'd say about 80% of it is strategical analysis. You may use pattern recognition to determine where you want to be, but someone who fully understands the concepts behind a good position will be able to play well. The tactics, or pattern recognition, are the way of making the most out of that position when you get there, and as such, are not as big a part of the game as strategy, although just as important.
Mar 19, 2008
0
#7
How 'bout being able to jump your own piece? Sometimes my pawn is just in the way.
We know that black is at a disadvantage. How about allowing black to jump his own man, only once in the game. This makes black into the bad guy.
By 'jump', I don't mean 'jump over', but to remove the jumped piece from the board.
There is another thread on this: chess will not be solved in our lifetimes. There are more possible positions than atoms in the universe - it would take all the current computing power in the world 50 years to just to calculate the exact number.
BTW, I think pattern recognition is distinctly different from memorization. Pattern recognition requires an ability to understand the problem so that you can apply it to other, similar situations.
Mar 19, 2008
0
#9
Agreed. I've known some very smart people who just didn't get the knack for chess. Bridge yes. Other card games yes. But for some reason not chess. Also, it is worth noting that I enjoy a game of checkers even though it has been solved (or so they say above). Also, I enjoy Connect Four, even though I know for sure that has been solved.
I disagree with the premise that knowing that it is solved implies that the game is no longer fun.
judgeofthenight wrote: try these: we learnt two of them from a 6th grader named Umut Bul. Babychess was introduced to us by Mr.Tutku in our brother school,which hosted a chess tournament. BABYCHESS Played in teams of 2.One teammate is black other is white.When you capture a piece you give it to your teammate.He can place it anywhere but not eat a piece with it.After placing a piece it is your foe's turn.If your teammate is checkmated,you lose as well. TAKE IT!(By Umut Bul) Similar to normal chess but in Take It! you must make your opponent take all your pieces except for your king.If you are able to take a piece,you must TAKE IT!
Then you had "Crazyhouse" which was like bughouse, but with 2 players, where if you captured a piece it changed colors and you could place it.
Then there was "Atomic" which I never quite understood, but it was something to the effect that when a piece took it blew up, pawns just destroyed themselves, but anything else destroyed the surrounding pieces.
And then there were mutliple other variations, including one where the pawns were moving the opposite way, so you could only move your knights at first, so you move a knight and then queen the pawn going into the square the knight just vacated.
But I think the rules in chess might change again, but not for a while. And I'm content with it how it is. Although some of the variations are quite fun sometimes.
direwolfe wrote: There is another thread on this: chess will not be solved in our lifetimes. There are more possible positions than atoms in the universe - it would take all the current computing power in the world 50 years to just to calculate the exact number. BTW, I think pattern recognition is distinctly different from memorization. Pattern recognition requires an ability to understand the problem so that you can apply it to other, similar situations.
You don't need all possible moves and variations to solve a game, just the good ones. When checkers was solved this summer it was done by a computational proof, not a mathematical one, which made the project significantly less difficult and time-consuming.
What's wrong with Fischer's own solution to this problem? I don't like the way he handled castling, but in general it's a very sound idea. Seirawan chess isn't quite as variation intensive, but it's still interesting. Slowing the game down by weakening half the chessmen doesn't strike me as a good way to reinvigorate it.
What an idiot !!!
Mar 23, 2008
0
#15
To all who say that chess WONT be solved in our lifetimes, I say this: you are wrong!
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Agreed. I've known some very smart people who just didn't get the knack for chess. Bridge yes. Other card games yes. But for some reason not chess. Also, it is worth noting that I enjoy a game of checkers even though it has been solved (or so they say above). Also, I enjoy Connect Four, even though I know for sure that has been solved.
I disagree with the premise that knowing that it is solved implies that the game is no longer fun.
The games are no longer fun if one of the players is aware of the "solution". If I know the plays in connect four which allow me to always win, no matter what you move (the definition of being solved), and I will always win, no question, then that removes the fun. If neither of is knows the solution, then the game can be fun. The problem is, you can't always say for sure if your opponent knows the solution or not.
This is why when (not if) chess is solved, I will likely stop playing standard chess. At that point, it will become just a matter of memorizing the solution, and a player can always win. At that point, chess960 is a likely alternitive for me.
Mar 23, 2008
0
#17
I can solve a rubiks cube yet I still have the urge to pick it up everytime I see one. I imagine it will be same with chess.
octatonicman wrote: I can solve a rubiks cube yet I still have the urge to pick it up everytime I see one. I imagine it will be same with chess.
The difference is that a Rubik's cube is a puzzle by itself, it is not a competition against someone else. I know how to solve a jigsaw puzzle, and enjoy doing so, but my doing so isn't at someone else's loss. Once chess is solved, it might be a fun excercise to go through the motions of the solution, but I won't want to be the person sitting across the table from you playing a "game". That's all I'm saying.
Cheater1 says he has been playing chess for over 30 years and he is bored with the game, well cry me a river if he would actually put some effort into playing the game without outside assistance from a computer or some other source he just might enjoy it. I have been playing for over 40 years now and still enjoy the game, it doesn't matter to me if a computer can play a perfect game or not since there is NO human that can and as long as humans play the game they will make mistakes. So if he wants to play some variation fine but leave the real game to those of us that are willing to put in the hard work not just put moves into a computer and then play those moves to boost your ego.
Baseballfan wrote: octatonicman wrote: I can solve a rubiks cube yet I still have the urge to pick it up everytime I see one. I imagine it will be same with chess.
The difference is that a Rubik's cube is a puzzle by itself, it is not a competition against someone else. I know how to solve a jigsaw puzzle, and enjoy doing so, but my doing so isn't at someone else's loss. Once chess is solved, it might be a fun excercise to go through the motions of the solution, but I won't want to be the person sitting across the table from you playing a "game". That's all I'm saying.
But it also complicates the picture, which is what keeps things interesting. Rubik's cube is perfectly predictable; rotate a side and you know what will happen. You cannot predict an opponent's moves with any certainty.
I guess I can understand how the late, insane Bobby Fischer grew bored of chess and invented Fischer Random. Play chess as long as I have, over 30 years, and it gets boring as heck. Just as professional sports leagues make small changes in the rules year after year to streamline the game, I think chess needs to reinvent itself. As we all know, chess is 99% memorization and pattern recognition. When you get down to it, you can have the IQ of an egg plant and become a GM. It's true. We all know computers do not possess an IQ. THey have no brain. They are superior to humans because they can "remember" all the opening moves and best lines to play. "Rainman" or any idiot savant could become a 2500+ player with some basic coaching.
Chess needs to be put in the blender and rehashed. I would like to see the pawns' initial move be limited to ONE square, never two. Think of the millions of new variations you will get and the millions of boring, tired, old ones that you can kiss goodbye. Certain pieces should get "special moves" such as the rook can capture another rook on the diagonal if they are on neighboring squares. Etc., etc., etc.
It'll never happen, I know. Perhaps someday, though, when chess gets SOLVED as checkers has been, new rules will be made up to save it from extinction. Trust me, chess WILL BE SOLVED in our lifetimes.